When George W. Bush announced he would execute a "troop surge" to send more American soldiers to Iraq and Afghanistan in January 2007, it was billed as an increase of slightly over 20,000 soldiers that would cost less than six billion dollars.

"America will change our strategy to help the Iraqis carry out their campaign to put down sectarian violence and bring security to the people of Baghdad," Bush announced in a prime-time televised address. "This will require increasing American force levels. So I've committed more than 20,000 additional American troops to Iraq."

The "surge," recognized as an escalation by many, was immediately controversial for several reasons --- not the least of which was a concern that the increase of 20,000 American soldiers might turn into a much larger US presence in Iraq, and a much more expensive one, than promised.

Three months after Bush's announcement, those fears have come to fruition.

Let's take a look at the numbers, in both troops and dollars...

THE TROOP 'SURGE' SURGE

Less than a month after Bush announced his plan to send slightly over 20,000 additional American soldiers to the middle east (the exact number advertised by the Administration was 21,500), a report from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) emerged predicting that the "surge" could easily balloon to nearly 50,000 soldiers, when support personnel were taken into consideration.

In a February 1st letter [PDF] from CBO Director Peter Orszag to House Armed Services Committee Chair Ike Skelton (D-MO), Orszag wrote that "[The] CBO assumed that additional support troops would be deployed in the same proportion to combat troops that currently exists in Iraq."

"That approach would require about 28,000 support troops in addition to the 20,000 combat troops --- a total of 48,000," he said. Orszag explained that since Bush and the Pentagon had been so vague about their troop surge announcement that the CBO also devised other potential scenarios including one with less support personnel than is typical. At the time, Congressional Republicans and the White House criticized the estimate of nearly 50,000 troops as patently unrealistic.

In early April, the Defense Department announced that a separate and additional 12,000 National Guard could be headed to Iraq and Afghanistan by early next year in connection with the surge. If the Pentagon deployed the normal number of support personnel to cover the new National Guard troops, in addition to the typical number of personnel for the original 21,500 troops plus the initial 21,500 soldiers themselves, the total would reach more than 78,000 in surge-related deployments.

Moreover, the Pentagon recently announced it was sending an extra 9,000 Army troops to Iraq in order to sustain the surge. These 9,000 soldiers, who would not have been shipping out to Iraq were it not for the escalation, will be replacing normal non-surge affiliated soldiers whose tours of duty have expired. Officials say this will have the effect of keeping the overall number of American forces in Iraq well above normal levels.

Combine all those figures together including the normal numbers of support personnel, and the surge adds up to an astounding 87,000 soldiers involved in one way or another.

However, the Defense Department is not sending their normal number of support personnel along with the "surged" troops, and instead is sending a lower ratio of support personnel than ever before in the four plus years of war in Iraq.

Instead of the typical 28,000 support personnel per 20,000 troops deployed which the Congressional Budget Office says is normal, Pentagon officials have said far fewer support personnel are needed for the initial 21,500 troop boost in Iraq. In March, Pentagon officials testified before the Senate, saying that only 7,000 more support personnel maximum would be deployed to Iraq in connection with the early stages of the surge, which officials project will "peak" in May. This reflects only a third of the normal ratio of support personnel to combat troops that have been used in the past.

Assuming the Defense Department does not shortchange the surged troops even further on support personnel, there will be 44,000 soldiers associated with the escalation, not including the 9,000 Army soldiers who will soon join them.

Of those 9,000 troops, about 4,500 will be facing an accelerated deployment, almost three months earlier than Pentagon guidelines allow. Critics say these type of unexpected deployments that leave soldiers less time at home with their families degrade the quality of the military. Some of these soldiers are being sent back to Iraq for a second or even third time.

The budget associated with the escalation is a whole other can of worms.

THE BUDGET SURGE

The Department of Defense and the White House originally claimed that the escalation would cost less than $6 billion, a figure that even some Republicans have called suspect. "It's obvious the $5.6 billion is a number that's not accurate," Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH), the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee said in early March. Democrats echoed Gregg's skepticism after Pentagon officials testified before the Committee claiming that $5.6 billion was a perfectly reasonable cost estimate for the escalation.

Only days later, the military revised its own estimate, and increased it by almost one half. Democrats like Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who sits on the Budget Committee, were furious. "A senior Defense Department official testified that the military needed only $5.6 billion to fund Mr Bush's Iraq War escalation," Menendez said, recalling testimony in a statement issued by his office.

"Yet, less than one week later - the Pentagon comes back to the Congress to say they indeed need $2 billion more than they requested. Talk about a surge. If Pentagon officials can't add or subtract - how can we expect them to win a war?"

One key point important to calculating the cost of the escalation is the actual length of the personnel buildup. The White House has resisted guessing how long the "temporary" troop surge will last, and as a result, Congress has largely been left out of the loop. When asked by the Senate Budget Committee to calculate the cost of Bush's surge, the Congressional Budget Office found itself at an impasse because it was unclear how long it might last.

To solve this problem, the CBO again produced separate sets of estimates based on different guesses of how long the surge might last. "If DoD deployed a total of 48,000 troops," Director Peter Orszag wrote in his letter to the Senate Budget Committee, "and sustained that level for four months, costs would be about $13 billion higher than for the current force levels, CBO estimates." That estimate is more than twice the original Administration estimates of cost.

A 12 month buildup might cost an extra $27 billion over normal operating costs, the CBO concluded. If the surge lasted twice that long, it would be projected to reach close to $50 billion. The Pentagon has indicated that it does not know how long Bush's surge could last, and they have opted not to include it in their funding request for 2008.

"You know, things are going to change on the ground," Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England said in Senate testimony, "So there will be, constantly, some variation in [our $5.6B cost estimate]. But that's very close."

Regardless of the accuracy of the Administration's budget or troop estimates, at least they bothered to come up with them. The same cannot be said, as The BRAD BLOG reported with some vigor in January, for an estimation of the number of casualties that will be sustained as part of the "surge."

CNN’s Barbara Starr reports, “The Pentagon today, as we speak, is reviewing a request from commanders in Iraq for the extension of the tour of duty for up to 15,000 Army troops. four combat ground brigades. One combat aviation brigade. their tours might be extended up to 120 days. Why? Because the Pentagon has to find a way to keep that so-called troop surge going.”

Congratulations Arlen, this is the type of word usage that will get you on the list:

A top Constitutional scholar from Princeton who gave a televised speech that slammed President George W. Bush's executive overreach recently learned that he had been added to the Transportation Security Administration's terrorist watch list.

"Yet, less than one week later - the Pentagon comes back to the Congress to say they indeed need $2 billion more than they requested. Talk about a surge. If Pentagon officials can't add or subtract - how can we expect them to win a war?"

My brother is part of this surge, he'll win the war the same way the rest of us will win......we'll be lucky to make it out alive, and after Bush, he/we won't have much of a home to come back to.

I say win the war NOW...Bush--->kangeroo court like we gave Saddam except we put his head on stake in the White House lawn when we're done. Keep Guantanamo...Cheney and Rummy can be the only inmates. Rove can personally go to Iran to fend off terrorist, but we'll only give him Nike and Roxy instead of a flack jacket and AR-15. That image of tubby Karl running from "terrorist" in nothing but a Roxy bikini and some fresh Nikes...priceless...watch the Neocons line up to be next.

You know, one of the arguments for not impeaching now (seems to indicate people believe they have committed impeachable acts) is that we would be too vulnerable during war time. Let me ask these questions, how vulnerable are we waiting for their WWIII? How many of our allies now call us illegal occupiers and tortures?
We will never show the world or the neocons that We The People abhor this administration with anything less than impeachment!
I suggest that Pelosi may very well come in line for Idiotboy's job, and she better start the conversation formulating an in depth strategy to deal with our top to bottom crisisses of democracy now, so people would be more open to taking the NECESSARY STEP!
If she doesn't, their WWIII is on her head too!

And lets not forget about the 100,000 or more "private Blackwater mercenaries" already there..Bush's very own private, no rules, no-holds barred, non-accountable mercs, that we support with our tax dollars..somewhere around 40% of the "war budget" oh and yeah theres Halliburton too..we pay for them...can you think of any other "contractors"...I know you can!

Think of it as burning the blood of our youth to fuel our SUV's. If we did not sacrifice our children on the alters of fascist capitalism - the oil barons would have to charge us $12.00/gallon for gasoline.

What is the big deal here ? Most of the dead bodies on the battlefield are from the ghetto not the gated communities of America. American democracy and freedom is not free, it is about time the poor picked up the tab.

Yup, we're all desensitized now...3, 4 thousand, I'll still be shopping,eating yummies, does LouDobbs even still mention the count anymore?! Look, they Neeeed the troops for whatever current reason so's they can protect the oil they are stealing(including their pipeline to Kuwait no one talks about). They'll pump out a new reason after this,in perpituity. Lies, ya it's funny when they say they do stuff 'cause they Care about people,I laugh like it's a comedy skit. The U.S. has spent insanely,not for the citizens' benefit, -on a country which had been 'stable',(decent for women,sorta good lives for the majority compared to now)where Americans can can Never ever go touristing without dying or being kidnapped or worse. And now the Iraqi folks hate the U.S. as much as Iran,..hmmm,..oh well cut the next check.

Talk about desensitized......that 16% that think they're doing a Heck of a Job and the others that can't be inconvenienced to think about the dead probably think, "Oh well, I'm sure they have a good reason they didn't tell the truth and that really doesn't affect me. You know, all the governments in the world lie. What's the big deal? They lie to protect us!" But you can bet they'll be incensed when the next illegal alien causes a drunk driving fatality. Meanwhile, their Granny has been abducted in a case of mistaken identity and special renditioned to a floating torture chamber somewhere in our "allied" world. I guess it will be "Oh well, at least we don't have to worry about what home to put her in any more."

Why should they tell the truth? The American press won't tell the truth about what they're doing, and the Iraqi press can't. Check out this report from Dahr Jamail:

The international NGO Reporters Without Borders, which advocates freedom of the press, releases an annual worldwide press freedom index. Countries are ranked on the basis of surveys designed to record any kind of harassment of journalists and state violence against them that forces them to flee or abandon their work. In 2002, under Saddam Hussein and his draconian control of the media, Iraq ranked a dismal 130. In 2006, after three years of U.S. occupation, Iraq fell to 154.

You got that right…according to Reporters Without Borders, press freedom is WORSE today in Iraq that it was under Hussein. Partly this is just because the situation is so violent there that no one is safe, especially not people who have to gather information in different parts of town. Anything you can say will offend somebody, and somebody probably has a gun. But it’s also the consequence of direct suppression, such as the 2004 shutdown of al-Jazeera. It’s remarkable how many self-described freedom-loving Americans see nothing wrong with that. I mean, supposing Clinton had shut down Fox News for their negative coverage and endless, anti-government hit-pieces? It strikes me there would have been some ruckus about that. But it’s really only Americans whose freedom of speech counts; for everyone else, freedom means being Americanized. That’s the premise of American imperialism, and it always has been, ever since the days of disease-carrying blankets and prairie missionaries. If you self-consciously, articulately disagree with that, you’re considered disloyal…which, considering what you’re supposed to be loyal to, YOU ARE.

The U.S. directly manipulates and controls media in Iraq, planting stories partly to affect public opinion there, partly to affect it back here. The American government does not hesitate to censor. For example, according to Jamail’s article, Iraq’s Media High Commission sent a letter on the prime minister’s letterhead warning reporters to, “Stick to the government line on the U.S. led offensive in Fallujah or face legal action,” and “set aside space in your news coverage to make the position of the Iraqi government, which expresses the aspirations of most Iraqis, clear.”

What can be done about an executive branch that shows total contempt for Congress? Further, what can be done about those who are IN CONGRESS who support the executive branch? That's got to be the height of insanity: Republicans who are in agreement with Bush that he should abuse them at every turn. Are they all colluding to destroy the Constitution for corporate gain, or am I stating the obvious?

What can be done about an executive branch that shows total contempt for Congress? Further, what can be done about those who are IN CONGRESS who support the executive branch? That's got to be the height of insanity: Republicans who are in agreement with Bush that he should abuse them at every turn. Are they all colluding to destroy the Constitution for corporate gain, or am I stating the obvious?

YOU: (Look them right in the eyes with the passion the guys on my website would want you to have and say) NOW!

There will be a pause and their wiring will go a little crazy because they are not prepared for this, so continue.

YOU: We want them out now, not next month not next year, NOW NOW NOW.

YOU: We need to redeploy at the borders, we need to gather intelligence, we need to impeach bush and Cheney and we need our overextended kids home now. We need to clean up the borders, the foreign policy, the justice system, GSA, Education, and EPA. We have so many problems in this country and it is directly caused by Bush, Cheney, and AEI's Iraq War, Iran Plan, and surge long and surge hard plan.

As long as Bush listens to these guys he has proven that he is choosing for this country to ride itself off a cliff (do research on AEI, they are on TV all the time telling us to fear Iran and we cannot give up on Iraq, and they are connected to PNAC). He needs to be impeached for the very least offense of putting our armed forces in harm's way without being able to see reality.

They will keep telling you about how you are a liberal pinko commie pussy who wants this country to lose and more BS. Just think of your children, your brothers and sisters. They would not cower from such a blatantly BS statement. You need to fight this w3ar here. The answer is now!

Our generals are capable of coming up with an exit plan in 90 days. 90 days we could be out (go ahead and challenge this), but it has to start today.

Eventually you will realize that they do not want to stay to win, they want to stay to keep control of oil by putting up 12 bases around pipelines. You will also realize that they want conflict so the price stays high. And unfortunately you will see that they are so ready to give up 100+ soldiers lives a month to do it (and $100= billion a year).

They will say we need to give the prez a chance, this is a trap, and they are planning to be there forever. The only answer is NOW, anything else a politician says is total BS. Stop being wishy washy, they do not have any information that you don't. They are messing with your heads.

OK HERE ARE YOUR TALKING POINTS -

Q: If you have been asleep for a while and you wake up to find that you are in a car and a blind person is driving, when would you cut off the engine?

A: NOW I would take the keys away now. If he did not give up the keys, I would punch him in the face remove the keys and jump the hell out

Anything else is BS, we need to take the keys away, that is what cutting the funding does.

We have so much work to do here, and we cannot start till we get the heck out. This life size GI Joe play set for chimp boy's birthday is done, OVER. He has already chopped off the heads of most of the toys and infected the rest with uranium. We need to get out now!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is time to take his toys away; he obviously thinks this is a game. So does anyone else that insults the deaths of our children by saying, "You are not saying we should lose are you? Or, you are admitting defeat, mommy the democrat admitted defeat nya nya you are a loser." Hey butthead, this is not a game, we got real shit to deal with here, so stop screwing with people with your shallow talking points that you program into our heads like we are monkeys.

PLAYTIME IS FUCKING OVER!!!!!!!!

Oh, but what about our leaders, our politicians. Stick Ryan in front of these lapdogs and head givers (Not my quote, ed of Nation on Colbert an hour ago) and see what he says. Here is what I would like to see in the interview:

CNN:

Hey democratic politician, surely you have a plan for victory with a timeline and with milestones? And surely you know that you cannot win because of the veto power of the pres and the Republicans that are in his pocket with money and blackmail. Surely you know we are only providing some theatrical performance in this interview, so what say you?

DEM POLITICIAN:

Actually fuckface that helped sponsor this war like you were Lipton and this was 1980's tennis, I have only one timeline. We are getting out now! Chimp boy gets no money, not one penny and if he does not start getting our military out of harms way he needs to be impeached today. In addition currently arrested for treason and crimes against humanity are the following:

AEI published author and blackmail pawn of the president: Jeff Gannon/Johnny Gosh Planner of the current "SURGE LONG AND SURGE HARD" pornographic slaughter route for our children and the upcoming "Iran Bloodbath:" Michael Ledeen AEI published constitutional destroyer and appeaser to the chimp crushing a child's testicles if it will make the father talk: John Yoo Destroyer of the US Judicial System: Antonio Donzales Destroyer of FEMA: Michael Chertoff Destroyer of GSA: Lurita Alexis Doan (YOU STOLE FROM US) Destroyer of EPA: Christina Whitman (YOU LIED TO US) Destroyer of US Education: Margaret Spellings (HOW COULD YOU ACCEPT THIS JOB???)
Others: (oh you know them all by now, you see them all over the 24/7 news shows talking about the fear of Iran and if we leave now if will be worse-LIES LIES LIES)

Any other question you murderer of our children with your scrolling mindfucks telling us to fear Iran and your sights and sounds trying to rally us to death.

No, no questions?

Well I have a question for you...how long will you be locked up for treason for what you helped do and are continuing to do to our country before you take that bed sheet and end the nightmares?

Looks like the US has been poking Iran with a sharp stick: We kidnap 5 of their citizens who are in Iraq legally and by invitation, and we "disappear" them; our naval fleet is perched off Iran's coast; and now Bush is bulking up our military in Iraq. There is pretty general agreement outside of Bush circles that a "surge" will accomplish little in the long run in Iraq. But Iran is just across the border, isn't it? It would certainly be handy to have our troops so conveniently located if or when Bush decides to attack Iran. Then all will work out just lovely, won't it?

FACT CHECKING?
The above "surge" figures do not include the increased number of personnel deployed nor the increased costs for
the second largest Coalition of the Rented armed force in Iraq- the Mercenaries (Blackwater, et.al)

Peter: The figures cited above do in fact include two estimates of the increased number of support personnel, one based on Congressional Budget Office figures and a second based on Pentagon figures. As for civilian contractors- that's a whole other issue.

www.cchreus.org and click on fraudulent marketing
When school authorities tell a mother that her son is sick and needs to be on drugs ,how in the world is she to know that ,that is simply a lie . How is she to recognize that what experts now call "SCHIZOPHRENIA" is simply not a disease now,such a mother is not an expert in the history of psychiatry,she does not know that psychiatrist have for hundreds of years used diagnostic terms,so called diagnostic terms,to stigmatize and control people I will only give you a few aromatic examples when BLACK SLAVES in the south ran away to freedom, it wasn't that they wanted to be free they suffered from a disease called dropetomania from drapetes run away slave,and mania I'AM NOT MAKING THIS UP ! . This was a a legitmate diagnosis just like SCHIZOPHRENIA woman half the population of mankind,of course, if they were foolish enough to rebel against domination by man well then they had a serious disease called HYSTERIA , which was due to their wandering womb.now none of those behaviors was ever a disease and, of course, is not a disease nor is SCHIZOPHRENIA disorder a desease no behavior or misbehavior is a disease or can be a disease. that's not what diseases are so it doesn't matter how child behaves . there is nothing to examine . if he is sick then there must be some objective science to it . which can be diagnosed by physicians and objective test . that's why as soon as you go to a doctor they take a lot of blood and take x-rays. they don't want to hear how you behave. when I went to medical school sixty years ago there were only a handful of mental diseases . I think there were no more than six or seven . now there are more than three hundred .And now ones are quote," discovered"every day . labeling a child as mentally ill is stigmatization,not diagnosis. giving a child a psychiatric drug is poisoning ,not treatment .Diseases are malfunction of the human body ,of the heart , the liver the kidney,the heart, the liver the kidney,the brain and so forth . typhoid fever is a disease, you all know that , you don't question that spring fever all you have to know is English . Spring fever is not a disease. the task we get ourselves, to combat psychiatric coercison is important. I think it's important you all think it's important not enough people think it's important , it's a noble task, a task in the pursuit of which we must , regardless of obstacles, persevere, our conscience commands that we do no less.